Introduction

In the ever-evolving business environment marked by swift market changes and technological advancements, firms encounter substantial uncertainty that directly influences their capacity for sustainable development. This uncertainty prompts managers to expect proactive and adaptable responses from employees, often referred to as “taking charge behaviors.” These behaviors involve voluntary changes in work methods, improvements in policies, and innovative procedures aimed at efficiently achieving organizational goals. Unlike assigned tasks, taking charge behaviors go beyond formal job descriptions, representing discretionary efforts that significantly contribute to organizational success and performance1. The identification of factors that promote and facilitate employees’ proactive behaviors is essential for organizations operating in intricate and unpredictable business contexts, enabling them to excel and prosper despite challenges.

Previous research has extensively examined the influence of various leadership factors on employees’ taking charge behavior2,3,4. Scholars argue that leaders are crucial in fostering a supportive organizational culture that encourages employees to take charge by providing mentorship, resources, and encouragement5. Among the various leadership approaches, servant leadership has garnered increasing attention due to its emphasis on ethical conduct and moral values6. Unlike transactional, charismatic, and transformational leadership, which often prioritize organizational goals or personal charisma, servant leadership focuses on serving followers’ needs rather than personal gain. Servant leaders demonstrate empathy, humility, and a commitment to the growth and well-being of their team members7. This follower-centric approach cultivates a climate of trust, psychological safety, and empowerment, fulfilling employees’ basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Such an environment enhances intrinsic motivation while reducing the perceived risks associated with taking charge behavior. Additionally, the ethical foundation of servant leadership, paired with its focus on long-term personal and professional development, fosters more sustainable effects on taking charge behavior8,9. Despite its increasing recognition, the impact of servant leadership on employees’ taking charge behavior remains underexplored. This gap in the literature presents an opportunity for further empirical research to investigate the role of servant leadership in facilitating employees’ taking charge behavior.

Drawing on Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and Social Exchange Theory (SET), we consider these theories as complementary in explaining the dual pathways through which servant leadership influences taking charge behavior10,11,12. Specifically, SDT captures the motivational pathway, while SET explains the relational pathway. According to SDT, servant leaders empower their teams by promoting autonomy, trust, and providing opportunities for personal and professional growth. This empowerment enhances employees’ intrinsic motivation, thereby fostering proactive behaviors such as taking charge13. Similarly, SET posits that when employees perceive their leaders as servant-oriented and trustworthy, they are more likely to cultivate positive supervisor–subordinate relationships, which in turn facilitate active engagement in taking charge behaviors14. By integrating SDT and SET, we propose that intrinsic motivation and supervisor-subordinate relationships may mediate the link between servant leadership and employees’ taking charge behaviors. This combined framework offers a more comprehensive understanding by capturing both the internal motivational mechanisms and the relational dynamics underlying taking charge behavior. However, this area warrants further exploration within the scholarly literature.

According to SET, the quality of the leader-member exchange is shaped by perceived equity and trust, which can vary depending on an employee’s hierarchical position15,16. Employees in higher positions generally experience stronger and more stable exchanges, as they are seen as more capable of reciprocating the support and trust extended to them by their leaders. This perception of mutual benefit is more pronounced at higher levels, where employees are expected to demonstrate leadership, strategic decision-making, and a deeper understanding of organizational goals17. The greater competence and strategic awareness typically associated with these employees fosters stronger supervisor-subordinate relationships, enhancing intrinsic motivation, as they are more likely to feel their contributions are valued. As a result, they are more confident in reciprocating leadership behaviors such as commitment, engagement, and initiative-taking, which in turn encourages taking charge behavior. Thus, hierarchical position plays a key moderating role in shaping the relationship between servant leadership and employees’ taking charge behavior. Therefore, this study seeks to address the following questions:

RQ1: How do intrinsic motivation and supervisor-subordinate guanxi mediate the relationship between servant leadership and employees’ taking charge behavior?

RQ2. To what extent do employees’ hierarchical levels moderate the relationship between servant leadership and employees’ taking charge behavior?

To address our research inquiries, we collected survey data from 365 Chinese employees and employed ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions to examine the association between servant leadership and employees’ taking charge behavior. Our results indicate a positive relationship between servant leadership and employees’ taking charge behavior. Additionally, we find that both intrinsic motivation and supervisor-subordinate guanxi serve as mediators in linking servant leadership to employees’ taking charge behavior. Moreover, we delve into the contextual boundaries of this relationship by exploring the moderating impact of employees’ hierarchical levels. Our analysis unveiled that the indirect influence of servant leadership on employees’ taking charge behavior through intrinsic motivation and supervisor-subordinate relationships is amplified among employees with higher hierarchical levels compared to their counterparts with lower hierarchical levels. This underscores the significant role of hierarchical levels in reinforcing the pathways through which servant leadership influences employees’ taking charge behavior.

This study makes several important contributions to the existing literature. First, it advances understanding of the determinants of taking charge behavior by empirically examining the impact of servant leadership—an area less explored compared to other leadership styles such as self-sacrificial, empowering, and authoritarian leadership4,18,19. Second, grounded in self-determination and social exchange theories, we investigate the parallel mediating roles of intrinsic motivation and supervisor–subordinate relationships as motivational and relational pathways linking servant leadership to taking charge behavior. This dual-pathway approach enriches the theoretical understanding of the mechanisms driving proactive employee behavior. Third, our study contributes to the literature on organizational hierarchy by exploring how employees’ hierarchical levels moderate the indirect effects of servant leadership on taking charge behavior via these mediators. Given prior inconsistent findings on leadership’s influence across hierarchical contexts18,20, our analysis clarifies how organizational hierarchy shapes the effectiveness of servant leadership in promoting proactive employee behaviors, thus addressing an important contextual boundary condition.

Literature review

Servant leadership

Servant leadership is defined as an other-oriented approach to leadership manifested through one-on-one prioritizing of follower individual needs and interests, and outward reorienting of their concern for self towards concern for others within the organization and the larger community7. Scholars have explored the dimensions of servant leadership21. For example, Barbuto Jr and Wheeler22 developed 11 potential dimensions of servant leadership, i.e., calling, listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, growth, and community building. Reed et al.23 divided servant leadership into interpersonal support, building community, altruism, egalitarianism, moral integrity. Antecedents of leader behavior generally incorporate organizational and team culture, policies, influences from above, and the personality and demographics of the leader, e.g., emotional intelligence, psychological need satisfaction, leader’s core self-evaluations, narcissism, founder status, and organizational identification24.

Prior studies have mainly analyzed the influences of servant leadership on follower behavioral outcomes (e.g., organizational citizenship behavior, helping behavior, and employee deviance) and follower job-related attitudinal outcomes (e.g., turnover intention, job satisfaction, perceptions of meaningful work, work engagement, and job cynicism)25,26,27,28. Scholars have also explored the influences of servant leadership on multiple levels of performance, i.e., team-related and organizational performance. In terms of team-related performance, prior studies have analyzed the influences servant leadership on team effectiveness, team psychological safety, team cohesion, team-level creativity and innovation16,29,30. Regarding organizational performance, several studies have analyzed the influences of servant leadership on organizational trust, organizational learning, organizational structure and strategy14,31. Given the influence of Confucian values—such as hierarchical respect, collectivism, and moral leadership—servant leadership has received growing attention in the Chinese organizational context32. For example, Ling et al.33 found that servant leadership promotes service-oriented behavior and improves service quality in the Chinese hotel industry, with service climate strengthening this relationship. Similarly, Yang et al.34 identified team identification as a key mediator linking servant leadership to employee creativity in Chinese banks. Despite being an important leadership style, the impact of servant leadership on employees’ taking charge behavior has not garnered significant attention in current literature.

Taking charge behavior

Taking charge entails voluntary and constructive efforts, by individual employees, to effect organizationally functional change with respect to how work is executed within the contexts of their jobs, work units, or organizations35. Taking charge plays an important role in bringing new insights to the organization by promoting innovation and strengthening the organization’s sustainability; thus, researchers have focused on understanding the factors that positively affect taking charge. The antecedents of taking charge behavior can be broadly categorized into four groups. First, individual factors include both demographic variables (e.g., gender, age, position, and education level) and personality traits such as proactive personality, self-centered traits, and ambition35,36. Second, leadership behaviors play a significant role, with various styles—including transformational leadership, empowering leadership, spiritual leadership, self-sacrificial leadership, authentic leadership, benevolent leadership, and even negative forms such as abusive supervision—shown to influence proactive behavior1,2,3,5. Third, organizational factors such as organizational justice, organizational practices, organizational climate, and organizational structure have been identified as important contextual variables37,38. Fourth, job-related factors, including job stress, job control, and job autonomy, also shape employees’ willingness and ability to engage in proactive behaviors39,40. These categories provide a comprehensive framework for understanding the multifaceted drivers of proactive behavior in organizational settings. Scholars have explored the outcomes of taking charge behavior, e.g., job performance, employees’ promotability and visibility1,41,42.

While prior research has examined the influence of various leadership styles on employees’ taking charge behaviors, the role of servant leadership remains relatively underexplored. In today’s organizational context—characterized by rapid change, a need for adaptability, and a growing emphasis on empowerment and ethical conduct—servant leadership is particularly salient. Its emphasis on meeting employees’ needs, fostering personal growth, and cultivating a service-oriented culture aligns closely with the demands of dynamic and uncertain environments, where proactive and self-initiated behaviors such as taking charge are critical for innovation and long-term success. Accordingly, this study investigates the impact of servant leadership on taking charge behavior and explores the underlying mechanisms through which this relationship unfolds. Drawing on self-determination theory and social exchange theory, we propose that servant leadership promotes taking charge behaviors via two key pathways: intrinsic motivation and supervisor-subordinate guanxi.

Self-determination theory

The concept of self-determination refers to “a quality of human functioning that involves the experience of choice. It is the capacity to choose and have those choices . be the determinants of ones actions”43. Self-determination theory posits that humans possess three fundamental and universal needs: autonomy (a sense of control and agency), competence (feeling capable in tasks and activities), and relatedness (feeling included or connected with others). Fulfilling these three basic needs leads to an enhanced self-concept and improved psychological well-being44. Self-determination theory categorizes human motivation into three main types: intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation13. Among these, intrinsic motivation is considered the most self-determined and has the potential to yield positive outcomes45.

Self-determination theory serves as the theoretical cornerstone for investigating the (motivational) mechanism through which servant leadership influences employees’ propensity for taking charge. Servant leaders bolster employees’ competency development by providing avenues for skill enhancement and professional growth. This support cultivates a sense of competence and capability among employees in their respective roles, subsequently fostering a proclivity to take initiative and confront challenges. Consequently, this proactive engagement contributes significantly to employees’ taking charge behaviors.

Social exchange theory

Social exchange, as defined by Cropanzano et al.46, refers to voluntary actions undertaken by individuals driven by the anticipated and realized benefits they expect from others. Cropanzano and Mitchell15 further argue that social exchange entails an interdependent relationship between two parties, characterized by bidirectional transactions that involve giving and receiving. This theory has gained prominence in management discourse, particularly in explaining workplace behavior47,48. Simply put, social exchange commences when one party takes the initiative to show kindness and provide benefits, which is reciprocated by the other party15. Without reciprocity, the social interaction ceases.

Social exchange theory serves as the theoretical underpinning for another (relational) pathway through which servant leadership influences employees’ taking charge behavior. This study posits that servant leaders, through their emphasis on comprehensive care for employees’ job performance and personal welfare, initiate a social exchange process that encourages employees to reciprocate with commitment and citizenship behaviors. This reciprocal relationship strengthens supervisor-subordinate guanxi. In order to sustain this relationship, employees may actively exhibit proactive behaviors to help managers maintain the firm’s competitiveness. Therefore, servant leaders persist in exhibiting servant behaviors, benefiting from the reciprocation they receive from employees.

Hypotheses development

Servant leadership and employee’s taking charge behavior

Servant leaders establish a reciprocal relationship with their employees, cultivating a trusting work environment and recognizing their contributions and dedication14. This mutual connection fosters desirable employee behaviors, particularly taking charge actions characterized by adept problem-solving and proactive resolution of challenges. The influence of servant leadership on employees’ willingness to demonstrate taking charge behavior can be explained through various mechanisms. Firstly, by prioritizing trust and respect within teams, servant leaders evoke beneficial behaviors from individuals15,49. In the realm of taking charge behavior, this translates to employees feeling empowered to take initiative and contribute actively when they perceive trust and respect from their leader14. Secondly, servant leaders employ positive reinforcement strategies, acknowledging and appreciating employees’ proactive efforts. According to social exchange theory, such reinforcement strengthens the reciprocal relationship by rewarding desirable behaviors15. When employees receive recognition for taking charge and contributing effectively, they are motivated to sustain these actions, leading to ongoing engagement and value creation within the organization. Based on these premises, we hypothesize the following:

H1: Servant leadership positively influences employee’s taking charge behavior.

Servant leadership and intrinsic motivation

Intrinsic motivation represents an employee’s level of enthusiasm and drive towards a specific work activity, deriving from an internal interest in the activity itself rather than external incentives50. Servant leadership, characterized by a leader’s focus on the holistic development and well-being of their employees, can influence intrinsic motivation through two primary mechanisms based on self-determination theory. Firstly, by granting employees autonomy, decision-making authority, and opportunities for both personal and professional growth, servant leaders foster a sense of ownership and responsibility, which in turn enhances intrinsic motivation51. Specifically, servant leaders’ listening behaviors validate employees’ perspectives, promoting a sense of autonomy52. Empathy strengthens relatedness by showing genuine concern for employees’ well-being, while empowerment enhances competence by offering opportunities for skill development and meaningful contributions53. Fulfilling these three basic needs leads to an enhanced intrinsic motivation44. Secondly, servant leaders cultivate a supportive work environment characterized by transparent communication, constructive feedback, recognition of achievements, and genuine concern for employee well-being, thereby enhancing employees’ motivation, engagement, and commitment26. Such an environment satisfies the basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, which, according to self-determination theory, are essential for fostering intrinsic motivation. By meeting these needs, employees feel respected, capable, and connected to a cohesive team, strengthening their intrinsic drive to contribute toward shared organizational goals. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:

H2: Servant leadership positively influences intrinsic motivation.

Servant leadership and supervisor-subordinate guanxi

Supervisor-subordinate guanxi is a term that refers to a specific and emotionally charged relationship between an individual and their immediate supervisor, characterized by mutual trust and potential for favorable exchanges54. This relationship is pivotal in organizational dynamics as it influences employee attitudes, behaviors, and contributions. There are two primary ways through which servant leadership influences supervisor-subordinate guanxi. Firstly, servant leaders prioritize the establishment of a trust-based relationship with their employees. Trust is an essential element in any exchange relationship, as it fosters a sense of security, openness, and reliability14. When employees perceive their leaders as caring, supportive, and trustworthy, they are more inclined to exhibit positive attitudes, behaviors, and contributions towards the organization49. This trust-based dynamic creates a foundation for a strong and mutually beneficial supervisor-subordinate guanxi55. Secondly, servant leaders demonstrate genuine care and concern for their employees’ well-being and success. They recognize and appreciate their employees’ contributions, provide constructive feedback, and offer support and guidance when needed. This approach creates a positive work environment characterized by mutual respect, recognition, and appreciation. Employees feel valued and motivated, leading to enhanced job satisfaction and commitment to their supervisors and the organization. Based on these observations, we propose the following hypothesis:

H3: Servant leadership positively influences supervisor–subordinate guanxi.

Intrinsic motivation and employee’s taking charge behavior

Intrinsic motivation significantly influences employee’s taking charge behavior through various channels. Firstly, intrinsically motivated employees experience heightened autonomy and self-determination. This autonomy empowers them to take initiative and make independent decisions in tasks aligned with their interests and values. Consequently, they proactively engage with challenges, demonstrating an assertive approach towards organizational objectives56. Secondly, intrinsic motivation is linked to a sense of purpose and ownership over one’s work. Employees find meaning in their roles, driving them to take charge, solve problems, and foster positive change57. This commitment leads to proactive behaviors aimed at improving processes and achieving strategic goals. Therefore, we propose:

H4a: Intrinsic motivation positively influences employee’s taking charge behavior.

Building upon Hypothesis 2, this study suggests that servant leadership indirectly impacts employees’ taking charge behavior through intrinsic motivation. Servant leaders focus on cultivating strong relationships based on trust, respect, and transparent communication, fostering intrinsic motivation among employees14. They also encourage personal and professional growth, enhancing autonomy and alignment with employees’ values. Consequently, employees are motivated to assume leadership responsibilities and enact positive transformations, leading to improved job satisfaction and motivation. Hence, we propose:

H4b: Intrinsic motivation mediates the relationship between servant leadership and employees’ taking charge behavior.

Supervisor-subordinate guanxi and employee’s taking charge behavior

A strong supervisor-subordinate guanxi, marked by mutual trust, emotional closeness, and personal support, plays a crucial role in promoting employees’ taking charge behavior. Unlike formal work relationships, high-quality guanxi involves deeper socio-emotional exchanges, particularly reciprocal understanding and mutual care. Grounded in social exchange theory, such relationships foster a psychological sense of indebtedness and an obligation to reciprocate15. When employees perceive that supervisors have invested time, trust, and emotional resources into the relationship, they are likely to internalize a norm of reciprocity. This sense of obligation motivates them to go beyond formal role requirements and engage in behaviors that support organizational improvement46. A key manifestation of this reciprocity is taking charge behavior—self-initiated, change-oriented actions aimed at enhancing work processes, policies, or organizational outcomes. Moreover, strong guanxi may enhance psychological safety and empowerment, reducing the perceived risks associated with proactive behavior. Employees embedded in such relationships are more confident that their initiatives will be positively received by supervisors, thereby reinforcing their willingness to take charge. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:

H5a: Supervisor-subordinate guanxi positively influences employee’s taking charge behavior.

Expanding on Hypothesis 3, this study posits that servant leadership indirectly impacts employees’ taking charge behavior through the lens of supervisor-subordinate guanxi. Servant leaders prioritize establishing robust relationships with their team members built on trust, mutual respect, and transparent communication. These positive connections cultivate loyalty and dedication among employees, who view their leaders as reliable and respectful, resulting in a sense of duty and commitment towards both the leader and the organization25. This sense of duty motivates employees to proactively take initiative and display taking charge behavior as a way to reciprocate the positive rapport with their leader. Furthermore, servant leaders foster a nurturing and empowering environment within the supervisor-subordinate guanxi, where employees feel valued, listened to, and acknowledged. This supportive atmosphere encourages individuals to step forward, take calculated risks, and actively contribute to achieving organizational objectives28. Employees who experience emotional connectedness and support from their leader are more inclined to exhibit taking charge behavior, driven by a desire to uphold and enhance the positive relationship with their supervisor. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:

H5b: Supervisor-subordinate guanxi mediates the relationship between servant leadership and employee’ s taking charge behavior.

The moderating role of employee’s hierarchical levels

Employees at various hierarchical levels possess distinct levels of knowledge, skills, and insights that are acquired throughout their professional development17. These differences play a crucial role in influencing how intrinsic motivation and supervisor-subordinate guanxi affect taking charge behavior. According to SET, the quality of interactions between leaders and subordinates is shaped by the resources exchanged, including trust, support, and information44. Employees at higher hierarchical levels typically have more extensive professional experience and greater decision-making authority, which influences both their perception of the value of leadership support and their ability to reciprocate58 This increased capacity for mutual exchange creates stronger and more stable leader-member relationships and reinforces intrinsic motivation by fulfilling employees’ psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. These enhanced exchanges encourage employees to take charge behaviors, as they perceive their contributions to be valued and their professional development to be supported. Based on these considerations, we propose the following hypotheses:

H6a: Employee’s hierarchical levels strengthen the positive relationship between intrinsic motivation between employee’s taking charge behavior such that the relationship is more positive when employee has a higher hierarchical level.

H6b: Employee’s hierarchical levels strengthen the positive relationship between supervisor-subordinate guanxi between employee’s taking charge behavior such that the relationship is more positive when employee has a higher hierarchical level.

Considering the mediating role of intrinsic motivation and supervisor-subordinate guanxi between servant leadership and taking charge behavior, it is logical to infer that hierarchical levels may also moderate the indirect effects of these factors. Employees with high hierarchical levels are more likely to benefit from servant leadership’s positive impact, as they possess advanced problem-solving skills, proactive tendencies, and clearer career goals59. This enables them to take voluntary actions aimed at enhancing organizational efficiency and achieving objectives. Based on these insights, we propose the following hypotheses:

H7a: Employee’s hierarchical levels strengthen the indirect effects of servant leadership on employee’s taking charge behavior through intrinsic motivation such that indirect effect is more positive when employee has a higher hierarchical level.

H7b: Employee’s hierarchical levels strengthen the indirect effects of servant leadership on employee’s taking charge behavior through supervisor-subordinate guanxi such that indirect effect is more positive when employee has a higher hierarchical level.

The above hypothesized relationships can be summarized as the proposed model shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Full size image

Theoretical framework.

Research methods

Sampling and data collection

This study conducted a questionnaire survey in China, focusing on general staff, junior managers, and middle managers across various industries (e.g., chemical, manufacturing, pharmaceutical, and hotel sectors) in different regions of China. These individuals have their own supervisors and are responsible for managing their relationships with them. Following the recommended sampling procedure for questionnaire formatting, distribution, and collection60, we created an online survey and emailed the survey link to employees and managers who met our criteria in the selected sample firms. During data collection, participants were assured that their personal information would remain confidential and be used solely for academic research. To further reduce the risk of social desirability bias, we employed procedural remedies by partially obscuring the study’s true purpose. This included the use of filler items and questions about general workplace experiences that were unrelated to the focal constructs. Additionally, each participant was given an incentive of 10 RMB to encourage participation. To enhance data quality and reduce common method bias, this study employed a two-wave survey design with a three-week interval between data collection points (March 27 to April 15, 2023). This approach aligns with the recommendation by Podsakoff et al.61, who suggest that a 3–4 week interval is adequate to mitigate common method bias while maintaining the temporal relevance of the measured constructs. In the first wave, participants reported their perceptions of servant leadership and provided demographic information. In the second wave, they completed measures of intrinsic motivation, supervisor–subordinate guanxi, taking charge behavior, and hierarchical level. Of the 405 questionnaires distributed, 49 were discarded due to incompleteness, ambiguity, or obvious response patterns. Table 1 provides detailed profiles of the respondents.

To ensure the accuracy and cultural relevance of the measurement instruments, we followed Brislin’s (1986)62 back-translation procedure. Two bilingual experts fluent in English and Chinese participated in this process. One expert translated the original English items into Chinese, while the second, who was unfamiliar with the original items, independently translated them back into English. Discrepancies between the original and back-translated versions were reviewed and resolved through discussion to achieve semantic equivalence and conceptual clarity. Following the translation, a pilot test was conducted with 30 participants from the target population to assess the clarity, interpretability, and cultural appropriateness of the translated items. Participants completed the survey and provided feedback on any items they found unclear or culturally inappropriate. Based on this input, minor linguistic adjustments were made to improve contextual relevance without altering the underlying meaning of the items. This rigorous translation and adaptation process contributed to the validity and reliability of the measures within the local cultural context.

Table 1 Demographics of respondents (N = 356).
Full size table

Common method bias and non-response bias

This study employed both procedural and statistical methods to mitigate common method bias. Procedurally, we designed a straightforward and focused questionnaire, organized measurement items by construct into distinct sections, and ensured respondents’ anonymity. These procedures aimed to encourage careful and honest responses, thereby providing reliable information. Additionally, we conducted Harman’s single factor test and homoscedasticity bias examination using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). The EFA results revealed four distinct factors with eigenvalues above or near 1.0, explaining 65.52% of the total variance. Importantly, the first factor accounted for only 47.14% of the variance, indicating that common methods bias was not a significant concern63. Non-response bias was evaluated by comparing early and late respondent data64. The results showed no significant differences (p > 0.05), indicating that non-response bias was not a significant issue in this study.

Measures

This study utilized established instruments from previous literature to measure relevant constructs. A 5-point Likert scale was employed for all items, ranging from “1” for “strongly disagree” to “5” for “strongly agree”. The construct of servant leadership, comprising 6 items, was adapted from Sendjaya et al.65. Intrinsic motivation, assessed with 7 items, was adopted from Fernet et al.66. Supervisor-subordinate guanxi, measured by 3 items, was adapted from Law et al.67. Employees’ taking charge behavior was measured using 6 items from Morrison and Phelps35. Employees’ hierarchical level was determined by their job position within the firm, denoted as 1 for low hierarchical level (e.g., normal employees), 2 for middle hierarchical level (e.g., junior managers), and 3 for high hierarchical level (e.g., senior managers). Additionally, control variables such as gender, age, education level, firm size, and working experience were included. Table A.1 in Appendix A presents the key constructs and measurement items utilized in this study.

Reliability and validity

This study utilized EFA and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to assess the reliability and validity of the focal constructs. EFA was initially conducted to examine the unidimensionality of the constructs. The results indicated that all items exhibited lower loadings on irrelevant constructs and higher loadings on their respective constructs. Additionally, Cronbach’s α coefficients were computed for each construct, with values ranging from 0.865 to 0.938 (as shown in Table 2), ensuring satisfactory internal consistency across the four constructs.

Convergent validity and discriminant validity were evaluated through CFA using the maximum likelihood method. The fit indices for the CFA model in Table 3, including χ2 = 550.840, df = 203, RMAEA = 0.069, CFI = 0.959, TLI = 0.953, SRMR = 0.036 indicated a reasonably high level of model fit. Table 2 presents the standardized factor loadings, composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE) values. All factor loadings exceeded 0.5, ranging from 0.73 to 0.95. The CR estimates were all above 0.7, ranging from 0.866 to 0.939, and the AVE values for the four constructs ranged from 0.519 to 0.724, exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.5, thus confirming satisfactory convergent and discriminant validity.

Discriminant validity was established by comparing the square root of the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for each construct with the correlations between paired constructs. Table 4 displays the outcomes, indicating that the square root of the AVE values on the diagonal exceeded the correlations between each construct and the other constructs. Consequently, our study verified discriminant validity.

Table 2 Results of reliability test.
Full size table
Table 3 Results of CFA.
Full size table
Table 4 Descriptive statistics, correlations and square root of AVE values.
Full size table

Analyses and results

Main effect

We employed a multistep regression approach to validate the hypotheses. Prior to conducting the regression analyses, we assessed multicollinearity among the independent variables. The results of collinearity statistics are shown in Table 5.

Table 5 Results of collinearity statistics.
Full size table

As shown in Table 5, all variance inflation factor (VIF) values were below the commonly accepted threshold of 5, with the highest VIF being 3.035, indicating that multicollinearity was not a serious issue in our models. Regression analyses, mediation analyses, and moderation analyses were conducted using the PROCESS macro version 3.3 in SPSS 27.0. The regression results are summarized in Table 6.

Table 6 Regression analysis results.
Full size table

The effect size f2 reflects the strength of each predictor variable in explaining the variance of endogenous constructs. According to Cohen (1988)68, f2 values of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 correspond to small, medium, and large effects, respectively. In our model, the observed f2 values range from 0.780 to 1.722, indicating very large effects. These results suggest that the predictor variables contribute substantial explanatory power to the model, highlighting their practical significance beyond statistical significance. As shown in Column (2) of Table 6, the coefficient of servant leadership is 0.755 (p < 0.001), signifying a significant and positive impact of servant leadership on employees’ taking charge behavior. Hence, H1 is confirmed.

Mediating effects test

We applied Baron and Kenny’s (1986)69 method to assess the mediating role of intrinsic motivation and supervisor-subordinate guanxi in the connection between servant leadership and employees’ taking charge behavior. In Column (3) of Table 6, the coefficient of servant leadership is 0.771 (p < 0.001), indicating a significant and positive impact of servant leadership on intrinsic motivation. Thus, H2 is confirmed. In Column (4), the coefficient of servant leadership is positive and significant (b = 0.613, p < 0.001), indicating a significant and positive relationship between servant leadership and supervisor-subordinate guanxi. Therefore, H3 is supported. Moreover, in Column (5), the coefficients of intrinsic motivation and supervisor-subordinate guanxi are 0.233 (p < 0.001) and 0.210 (p < 0.001), respectively, confirming H4a and H5a.

To further substantiate the mediation effect of servant leadership on employees’ taking charge behavior, we employed the bootstrapping method. We conducted bootstrapping with 5,000 resamples to assess the significance of the indirect effects of servant leadership on employees’ taking charge behavior through intrinsic motivation and supervisor-subordinate guanxi. We employed Model 4 of the PROCESS macro. The findings indicate a positive indirect effect of servant leadership on employees’ taking charge behavior through intrinsic motivation (indirect effect 0.179), with a 95% confidence interval (CI) excluding zero (95% CI [0.047, 0.310]). Thus, H4b is upheld. Additionally, servant leadership has a positive indirect effect on employees’ taking charge behavior through supervisor-subordinate guanxi (indirect effect 0.129), with a 95% CI excluding zero (95% CI [0.058, 0.201]). Hence, H5b is supported.

Moderating effect test

Concerning Hypotheses 6a, our prediction posited that the connection between intrinsic motivation and employee’s taking charge behavior would be moderated by the employee’s hierarchical levels. As evidenced in Column (6) of Table 6, the coefficient of the interaction term involving intrinsic motivation and hierarchical level is 0.124 (p < 0.001). Hence, H6a is upheld. Additionally, in Column (7) of Table 6, the coefficient of the interaction term involving supervisor-subordinate guanxi and hierarchical level is 0.164 (p < 0.001), affirming that the positive impact of supervisor-subordinate guanxi on employee’s taking charge behavior is amplified for employees with higher hierarchical levels. Therefore, H6b is supported.

To enhance our comprehension of these moderating effects, we graphed the interaction effect at one standard deviation (SD) below the mean, at the mean, and at one SD above the mean of the moderator. Figure 2a illustrates the moderating effect of hierarchical level on the relationship between intrinsic motivation and taking charge behavior. The positive association is significantly stronger among employees at higher hierarchical levels, suggesting that individuals in senior or managerial roles may experience greater autonomy and fewer structural constraints, enabling them to act on their intrinsic motivation. In contrast, the relationship is weaker at lower hierarchical levels, possibly due to limited decision-making power, fewer resources, or perceived barriers to initiating change. Similarly, Fig. 2b shows that the positive relationship between supervisor–subordinate guanxi and taking charge behavior also varies by hierarchical level. This relationship is stronger for employees in higher-level positions, indicating that those with more organizational influence are better able to leverage high-quality guanxi to engage in proactive behavior. Conversely, at lower levels, the effect is attenuated, likely due to a greater dependence on formal authority and reduced access to informal relational capital. Collectively, these interaction effects highlight the critical role of hierarchical context in shaping how both motivational and relational resources influence employees’ taking charge behaviors. They suggest that strategies to foster taking charge may need to be differentiated based on employees’ positions within the organizational hierarchy.

Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Full size image

(a) Moderating effects of hierarchical levels on the direct relationship between intrinsic motivation and employee’s taking charge behavior. (b) Moderating effects of hierarchical levels on the direct relationships between supervisor-subordinate guanxi and employee’s taking charge behavior. IM, intrinsic motivation; GX, supervisor-subordinate guanxi; TCB, taking charge behavior; HL, hierarchical levels.

We conducted analyses to explore the conditional indirect effects of servant leadership on employee’s taking charge behavior through intrinsic motivation and supervisor-subordinate guanxi, stratified by levels of hierarchical levels: low (one SD below the mean), middle (the mean), and high (one SD above the mean), following Preacher et al.70. The moderated mediation model was analyzed using Model 7 of the PROCESS macro in SPSS. As depicted in Table 7, the results demonstrate significant and more pronounced conditional indirect effects of servant leadership on employee’s taking charge behavior through intrinsic motivation when hierarchical levels are at a high level (indirect effect = 0.313, 95% CI [0.186, 0.430]), compared to a low level of working experience (indirect effect = 0.194, 95% CI [0.070, 0.312]), thus corroborating H7a. Similarly, the conditional indirect effect of servant leadership on employee’s taking charge behavior through supervisor-subordinate guanxi is also significantly positive and more pronounced at a high level of hierarchical levels (indirect effect = 0.226, 95% CI [0.154, 0.302]), compared to a low level of hierarchical levels (indirect effect = 0.136, 95% CI [0.070, 0.203]), providing support for H7b.

Table 7 Conditional indirect effect.
Full size table

Discussion and conclusions

In today’s competitive landscape, managers are increasingly depending on their employees to exhibit taking charge behavior, thereby introducing innovations and driving changes within firms to sustain their competitive advantages. However, the impact of servant leadership on employees’ taking charge behavior remains inadequately explored. Our study aims to address this gap by examining the interplay among servant leadership, intrinsic motivation, supervisor-subordinate guanxi, and hierarchical levels in influencing employee behavior, drawing on the theoretical foundations of SET and SDT. Our findings reveal that servant leadership has an indirect impact on employees’ taking charge behavior, mediated by intrinsic motivation and supervisor-subordinate guanxi. Furthermore, we observe that employee hierarchical levels play a significant moderating role in these relationships. These results not only contribute significantly to theoretical understanding but also hold crucial implications for managerial practice.

Theoretical implications

Our study contributes significantly to the existing literature in several ways. Firstly, we contribute to the taking charge behavior literature by bridging the gap between research on servant leadership and taking charge behavior. Specifically, we illuminate the indirect and complex effects of this relationship, enhancing understanding in this area. Given the pivotal role of employee taking charge behavior in organizational management, scholars have extensively investigated the influences of various contextual and individual factors on this behavior1. Leadership-related factors have been particularly scrutinized for their impact on employee taking charge behavior, yet scholars have not arrived at a consensus18,20. Among these leadership-related factors, leadership styles have garnered significant attention. Servant leadership, a prominent and widely adopted style, emphasizes prioritizing the individual needs and interests of followers and redirecting their focus from self-concern to concern for others within the organization. This style stands apart from transactional, charismatic, and transformational leadership styles, which emphasize performance outcomes, leader-centered vision, or organizational change directives8,9. Despite the importance and prevalence of servant leadership, the relationship between servant leadership and employee taking charge behavior has been largely overlooked in existing literature. Our study contributes to the literature on taking charge behavior by identifying and empirically examining servant leadership as a key determinant, thereby enriching the theoretical understanding of its antecedents.

Secondly, we contribute to the literature by integrating SET and SDT into a unified framework for examining the mechanisms linking servant leadership to employee taking charge behavior. Servant leaders empower employees by granting autonomy, demonstrating trust, and providing opportunities for personal and professional growth, thereby enhancing intrinsic motivation, which promotes high performance and openness to organizational change26. In parallel, when employees perceive their leaders as servant-oriented and trustworthy, they are more inclined to reciprocate through positive relationships with their supervisors. This reciprocal dynamic fosters a supportive environment that encourages active participation in change initiatives aimed at advancing organizational goals. Our empirical findings confirm that intrinsic motivation and supervisor–subordinate guanxi function as parallel motivational and relational pathways mediating the servant leadership–taking charge relationship. While prior studies in human resource management have applied similar integrative approaches10,11,12, our study extends this framework to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the simultaneous roles of internal motivation and relational dynamics in driving proactive employee behaviors. In addition to the parallel pathways identified in our study, it is possible that motivational and relational pathways may operate sequentially in certain contexts. Specifically, intrinsic motivation may initially drive an individual’s initiative and responsibility, which then strengthens the supervisor–subordinate guanxi. In this sequential model, the motivational pathway precedes the relational pathway, with each reinforcing the other over time.

Thirdly, our research significantly advances the understanding of organizational hierarchy by examining how employees’ hierarchical levels moderate the relationship between servant leadership and taking charge behavior. Previous research has predominantly focused on comparing managerial capabilities across hierarchical levels from the perspective of managers17,27. However, it is essential to recognize that employees at different hierarchical levels may possess unique perceptions of the organization’s goals and mission, potentially influencing how leadership styles impact their behavior. Specifically, employees in higher hierarchical roles, motivated by clear long-term career goals, demonstrate intrinsic motivation to contribute meaningfully in alignment with their strengths and job responsibilities. This alignment positively influences their inclination to take charge and initiate action. Their frequent and close interactions with leaders foster a strong rapport, facilitating smooth resource exchange and support, thereby strengthening supervisor-subordinate guanxi and promoting proactive initiative-taking. Our empirical findings affirm that employees’ hierarchical levels amplify the indirect impact of servant leadership on taking charge behavior through intrinsic motivation (or supervisor-subordinate guanxi). This amplification is particularly notable among employees in higher hierarchical levels. This perspective enriches the existing literature by providing insights into the impact of hierarchical levels from the employees’ perspective.

Managerial implications

This study holds significant managerial implications. Firstly, our findings demonstrate the substantial and positive impact of servant leadership on employees’ taking charge behaviors. Therefore, firms should prioritize cultivating servant leadership attributes among their managerial ranks to foster a work culture centered on empathy, empowerment, and a supportive environment26. This strategic focus is vital for nurturing servant leaders who not only inspire but also actively encourage employees to take initiative and engage proactively. To achieve this, firms can implement targeted training programs and workshops designed to enhance these critical qualities in their managerial personnel. For example, role-playing exercises can be used to help managers practice active listening in challenging workplace scenarios, while guided reflection sessions can develop greater awareness of employees’ perspectives and emotions. These initiatives should emphasize empathy, enabling managers to connect emotionally with their teams—for instance, by recognizing individual contributions during team meetings or providing personalized support during times of stress—which fosters trust, strengthens collaboration, and cultivates a sense of belonging14.

Secondly, our study confirms that intrinsic motivation plays a mediating role between servant leadership and employees’ proactive behaviors. Servant leaders should thus prioritize enhancing intrinsic motivation to promote proactive contributions from employees. This can be achieved by providing meaningful work aligned with employees’ skills, interests, and values, granting autonomy, offering recognition, and fostering personal and professional growth opportunities. Moreover, our study affirms that positive supervisor-subordinate guanxi acts as another mediator in the relationship between servant leadership and employees’ taking charge behaviors. This underscores the importance of servant leaders prioritizing the cultivation of trust, open communication, and mutual respect within their teams. These elements form the cornerstone of a positive rapport that facilitates the exchange of ideas, resources, and support among team members, empowering employees to assume leadership roles and drive positive transformations within the organization.

Finally, servant leaders should place particular emphasis on supporting employees at higher hierarchical levels to enhance their taking charge behavior through strengthened intrinsic motivation and supervisor–subordinate guanxi. Employees in mid- to senior-level positions typically hold greater decision-making authority, broader organizational influence, and increased role autonomy, positioning them to effectively initiate change and contribute to strategic improvements. However, they may also face heightened pressures, role ambiguity, or bureaucratic constraints that hinder their willingness or ability to take charge unless they receive adequate support. To foster taking charge behavior in these roles, servant leaders can enhance intrinsic motivation by reinforcing a sense of purpose, aligning job tasks with employees’ personal values and expertise, and offering meaningful opportunities for growth and impact. Providing autonomy-supportive leadership, such as granting discretion in decision-making and encouraging initiative, further empowers these employees to act proactively. In addition, recognition systems that reward not only outcomes but also effort, initiative, and innovation can reinforce motivation and signal organizational support. Moreover, cultivating high-quality supervisor–subordinate guanxi—characterized by trust, mutual respect, and open communication—can further facilitate taking charge behavior by fostering a relational environment where employees feel psychologically safe and supported in initiating change. These combined efforts help unlock the full potential of higher-level employees as proactive contributors and internal change agents within the organization.

Limitations and future research

While this study significantly contributes to both literature and practice, it also faces certain limitations that merit attention in future research. Firstly, our data were collected exclusively from employees in China, which may limit the generalizability of our findings to other cultural and organizational contexts. Cultural features characteristic of Chinese society—such as Confucian values, high power distance, and collectivism—likely influence how constructs such as servant leadership, supervisor–subordinate guanxi, and taking charge behavior are perceived and enacted. These culturally embedded factors may moderate the strength or direction of the observed relationships. To enhance the external validity and cross-cultural applicability of the proposed model, future research should replicate and extend this study in diverse cultural settings. Comparative cross-cultural research would not only deepen theoretical understanding of the mechanisms linking leadership and proactive behavior but also offer practical insights for multinational organizations aiming to promote taking charge behavior across culturally varied work environments. Secondly, the hypotheses tested in this study relied on cross-sectional data from a limited sample size, which challenges rigorously testing the causal relationships between servant leadership and employees’ taking charge behavior. Future research could adopt longitudinal approaches, case studies, or experimental designs to establish more conclusive and causal relationships. Thirdly, this study primarily explored the impact of servant leadership on employees’ taking charge behaviors from a self-determination and social exchange perspective. Future studies should build upon this foundation and investigate how servant leadership fosters various other positive outcomes through alternative mediators. Additionally, while this study considered the moderating role of employees’ hierarchical levels, numerous other contextual conditions within group dynamics, such as group climate and norms, can significantly influence how employees respond to servant leadership. Hence, future research should aim to theoretically integrate concepts of servant leadership, group climate, and individual differences to comprehensively examine the effects of servant leadership within complex group contexts. This holistic approach will contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the impact and effectiveness of servant leadership in diverse organizational settings. Finally, although we implemented several procedural measures during data collection—such as assuring anonymity and confidentiality, and partially obscuring the study’s purpose—to enhance the validity of our findings and reduce social desirability bias, this concern cannot be entirely ruled out. Additionally, while the use of a two-wave time-lagged design helps mitigate common method bias, the reliance on self-reported data remains a limitation. To address this issue, future research should incorporate multi-source data, including supervisor ratings, peer evaluations, or objective behavioral indicators (e.g., performance records or innovation outcomes), to provide a more comprehensive and unbiased assessment of taking charge behavior.